109 comments:

I think non-binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government is actually a good thing for Bush. It allows Bush to play good-cop bad cop (Congress) with the Iraqis.

In the end, the idea of a democratic Iraq always depended on the Iraqis and their desire to have it. If West Germany had no will to defend themselves against Communist Russia we would have lost Germany to the Russians eventually.

However, we should not abandon Iraq because small minority groups there such as Al Sadr or Al Qaeda speak with loud voices. The current Democrat plan in Congress is to abandon Iraq to these forces. If you think invading Iraq is a major historical blunder - abandoning Iraq would far exceed that on the blunder level.

If Iraq is unable to maintain a democracy (if Iraqis are not willing to fight for the government), we should support a takeover by the army just as we did in Turkey and S. Korea for many years.

A couple of reasons that indicate that we aren't losing in Iraq. First, it is notable that al Qaeda has moved from human bombers to car bombs now to truck bombs. Part of the signicance there is that the only way that they can keep up the body counts is to constantly increase the size of the blasts, as the frequency continues to drop. So, now instead of ten small bombs killing ten people each time, they are using one that kills 100. But that is only going to work so long, as trucks are easier to control than cars are.

Another is that almost all the tribes are onboard in Anbar now with the ASC, working with Iraqi and U.S. security forces to clean the foreign terrorists out of the province. So, a lot of them moved to Diyala. Well, the tribal leaders there are starting to follow the lead of those in Anbar. A long way to go there, but still a start.

Saddam put a million people in mass graves. He had a secret police of hundreds of thousands willing to carry out his police state of tyranny and death. Al Qaeda needs a lot more bombs and destruction before they can match Saddam's record. However, unlike Al Qaeda, press coverage was not desirable. Press coverage of Saddam's crimes only increased the outrage against him. In contrast, press coverage of Al Qaeda's crimes increases the outrage against Bush by defatists and political opportunists like Doyle. As such, Al Qaeda works every day for larger and larger explosions hoping for more and more converts of defeat here in the U.S.

Doyle your reaction to Al Qaeda's public scenes of death is no different than the copperheads reaction to Union defeats in the Civil War. How pathetic.

Once the insurgency/terrorists were able to take root, the war immediately became about our will to win, and the patience necessary to win.

The enemy knows, as the enemy did in Vietnam before, they cannot defeat us on the battlefield.

And in Iraq they have yet to do so, nor are they ever going to do so.

So, with the help of the same folks who so ably assisted the North Vietnamese before, they have aggressively sought to undermine our will to win, and have effectively defeated the Democrats in Congress and their voters without firing a shot.

So now Bush needs funding from a Congress that wants to surrender yesterday. If benchmarks, which aren't bad in theory but problematic in practice, are the price for a deal, then so be it. It buys time for our troops to kill off more enemies, the Iraqis to bolster their capabilities and lessen political tensions.

Under the worst case scenario, brave American soldiers continue to die in a war in Democrats have absolutely no intention of letting them win; smart Iraqis understanding Americans quit on their allies when the Democrats are in charge will make arrangements to flee before the religious genocide begins; Iran, al Qaeda, and other enemies of America will gain strength and the larger war will be longer and bloodier.

Yes, Bruce must subscribe to the Alice in Wonderland school of policy analysis. Because the bombs in Iraq are getting ever more sophisticated and powerful that means we are winning. So I guess that means that because the 9/11 attacks on the WTC were so much more devastating than the 1993 truck bomb attack, that means that Al Qaeda was actually weaker in 2001 than it was in 1993 . . .or something like that.

If I think too hard about the "logic" and "signs of progress" Bruce and Sloan expound, smoke starts to come out of my ears. Oh, and Sloan, I just love how you dismiss Al Sadr as a "small minority group".

Along with pretty much anyone else who would look to America to liberate/reform their nations. We've already betrayed the Kurds once. If we abandon Iraq, no one will ever trust America again. We will be branded a Paper Tiger, OBL will be proven right, and military action against rogue nations like Iran, Syria and N Korea will become much more difficult. Who wants to throw in with deserter? Who wants to put the lives of their family in the hands of an irresolute champion?

So now Bush needs funding from a Congress that wants to surrender yesterday.

Bush could have avoided all this by putting his request for war funding in the regular budget. We are in the fifth year of the war yet he is funding it in an "emergency request". What is the emergency? He knew what he was going to need for the war this year.

And according to the president's budget the war will be over by the time he leaves office. His budget only anticipates half the money for the war next year and none in fiscal 2009. So who is not being honest and refuses to discuss the patience necessary to win? The president has tried to have it both ways, pretend this is an existential struggle, yet act as though the war is completely cost-free to the American people.

freder: Because the bombs in Iraq are getting ever more sophisticated and powerful that means we are winning. So I guess that means that because the 9/11 attacks on the WTC were so much more devastating than the 1993 truck bomb attack, that means that Al Qaeda was actually weaker in 2001 than it was in 1993 ...or something like that.

Except thats not what Bruce said. Telling that you have to craft a strawman in response to his points.

If I think too hard about the "logic"...

Logic? You believe the FBI violated the rights of the Fort Dix terrorists [entrapment], then complain they aren't similarly violating the rights of militant Christians...

"First, it is notable that al Qaeda has moved from human bombers to car bombs now to truck bombs. Part of the signicance there is that the only way that they can keep up the body counts is to constantly increase the size of the blasts"

He is saying they are resorting to larger blasts because they need to to get the same body count (apparently he believes they are running out of foot soldiers). Of course he completely discounts the fact that larger bombs require greater organization, larger cells, greater technical expertise, more funding, and a higher level of planning. He also ignores the fact that there were some very large bombings earlier in the war (e.g., the UN headquarters).

Of course he completely discounts the fact that larger bombs require greater organization, larger cells, greater technical expertise, more funding, and a higher level of planning.

No, he doesn't discount it. He even posits that larger endeavours like that are easier to disrupt: But that is only going to work so long, as trucks are easier to control than cars are.

Even you understand this:

larger bombs require greater organization and are thus more complex and more prone to disruption by US forces & Murphy's Law, larger cells leave a larger footprint and are easier to identify and target, greater technical expertise means fewer specialized agents that [when eliminated] diminish the lethality of terror ops, more funding is more likely to skyline itself and is easier to disrupt, a higher level of planning means more damage to them when get inside their planning-operation loop.

"If this is the standard we are applying, my friend's brother would have been in federal prison long ago."

And when did I ever say my friends brother should be in prison. In fact later on in the thread when Roger got his panties all in a wad because I wasn't willing to drop a dime on these guys (oh and btw Roger, the BATF actually sent me an email following up on your inquiry) everyone started calling me a liar and a coward, Cedarford actually said he would kill me if he ever got the chance (btw Ann did you ban him?), and generally everyone went apeshit crazy (or "butt-fucking" as Roger put it) because I had the gall to suggest that I consider some Christian groups just as wacky and deluded and even more dangerous than the "terrorist" groups the FBI has busted over the last several years.

My point was--and I know you people got it, you just like to paint me as some whacked out Islamoid jihadi lover--is if we don't throw people like my friend's brother in jail for their activities (and once again I don't think we should even though I would like the government to be a little bit more proactive about taking their illegal guns away), the cases brought against muslims (eg., the lackawana six, the guys in miami, and this Ft. Dix bust) so far look pretty silly.

I would like the government to be a little bit more proactive about taking their illegal guns away),

Here we agree. In fact aggressive profiling is the best way to accomplish this. 80% of the terrorist threat right now in America comes from young men who live here and have a twisted idea of islam. As such we need to profile and keep an eye on young muslim men who read about radical islam. It seems so simple.

The other 20% comes from Al Qaeda terrorists trying to get into America. Note, that this 20% would go up to 90% if we withdraw from Iraq.

Fen, why don't you believe the Pentagon when they say that "AQ" only constitutes a small fraction of the violence in Iraq?

Al Qeada may constitute a small fraction of the fighters and incidents, but Al Qaeda causes most of the mass civilian casualties. Al Qaeda is responsible for the mass suicide bombings, not the shia and sunni gangs.

why don't you believe the Pentagon when they say that "AQ" only constitutes a small fraction of the violence in Iraq?

I'd like to see your source Doyle, I doubt it says what you claim.

"Petraeus.. reminded Pentagon reporters this week of a critically important fact long forgotten by most observers: Our real enemy in Iraq, the true source of all the murders, mayhem, and instability, is not sectarian strife. And it's not the Sunnis or the Shiites, either. The real enemy we face in Iraq is al-Qaida.

This is why there can never be a so-called "political settlement" unless and until the United States can militarily cripple al-Qaida in Iraq. Only then can a political settlement be reached, one that can provide for a healthy representative government, oil sharing, proportional staffing in ministries and on down the line."

80% of the terrorist threat right now in America comes from young men who live here and have a twisted idea of islam. As such we need to profile and keep an eye on young muslim men who read about radical islam. It seems so simple.

Where do you get your statistics Sloan? I bet the monkeys that fly out of your butt deliver them to you on engraved stationary. Were islamic terrorists responsible for the attempted abortion clinic bombing in Austin, TX last week? Even the FBI says ecoterrorists are the number one domestic terrorist threat (although this is rather odd considering to date they have only committed property crimes).

The problem is that "Al Qaeda" when you are talking about Iraq is a very imprecise term. It is not one organization and basically has become synonymous with the Sunni insurgency, not the fundamentalist Wahabbi organization associated with OBL. That part of the insurgency, composed of foreign fighters, is a very small portion of the insurgency indeed.

So I guess that means that because the 9/11 attacks on the WTC were so much more devastating than the 1993 truck bomb attack, that means that Al Qaeda was actually weaker in 2001 than it was in 1993 . . .or something like that.

Interesting. Here is another analogy. In 1940, the German army actually had inferior armor (both quality and quantity) with respect to the French and Brits yet German armor proved more than a match for both.

By 1944, the Germans were cranking out the Mark IV, Tiger and Panther tanks, the latter of which was arguably the best medium tank of the war (the toss up is the Panther or the Soviet T-36).

So German armor actually improved at a time when they had been pushed out of North Africa, most of Italy, and a good chunk of Western Europe. I’m just using armor as an example. In fact, from small arms to armor, German technology advanced quite well despite 24/7 strategic bombing and battlefield losses. In fact, a disproportionate amount of US casualties in Europe too place roughly 5 months before the war ended when a supposedly defeated army counterattacked and inflicted some 80,000 killed, wounded and missing on the US Army.

Freder, after the bootie-spanking you took over the Christian right wing groups being the greatest terrorist threat to the US, and then referring them to docile bunnies who only become rabid when the Feds start poking around, you might want to really, really, really think before you post.

Bruce Hayden had a good 9:10 AM post. I would just add that after 5 years we should know that radical Islamoids - salafist and wahabbi - are netcentric and AQ is only one of about 80 organized Muslim radical groups that use terror. Plus we have the "Spontaneous jihadi" that just reads jihad materials and goes out on their own or in small groups with no connection to any other Muslim terrorists on their own independent Jihad.

AQ is perhaps the most dangerous outside Hezbollah, but it is by far not the only problem. Most of the foreign fighters in Iraq have no AQ connection, but to other groups.The good news is they are being killed off in large numbers by Sunni, US Coalition, and Shiites. Same thing happened in Algeria in their civil war in the 1990s. The people grew disillusioned with the butchering radical Islamoids and finally turned on them to stop the bloodshed. Iranians appear sick of the Islamoid Mullahs. Saudi Arabia itself is slowly coming to see terror as a cancer, though they still pump out their malignacy-inducing toxin of Wahabbist Islam globally.

Bush's big problem and biggest tragedy is that his 5 years of arrogant blundering and casualness and refusal to admit mistakes may finally doom his Iraq effort because his 11th hour conversion comes too late.

By 1944, the Germans were cranking out the Mark IV, Tiger and Panther tanks, the latter of which was arguably the best medium tank of the war (the toss up is the Panther or the Soviet T-36).

The Soviet tank was the T-34, not the T-36. And the German's main problem was they were incapable of "cranking out" anything. By the end of the war the Mark IV was obsolete but the Germans continued to manufacture it because the Panther continued to suffer both mechanical and production problems. Compare the number of Panthers (6557 including the Jadgpanther) and Mark IVs (just over 13,000) produced with the T-34 (56,000) and the Sherman (47,000).

That Hitler wasted his last reserves of men and materiel on a suicidal attack on the American lines in December of 1944 is supposed to demonstrate what?

Freder - Even the FBI says ecoterrorists are the number one domestic terrorist threat (although this is rather odd considering to date they have only committed property crimes).

The only problem, Freder, is you lie - so deep is your love of Islamoid enemies that you claim anyone, anyone - from Christian militias that are "harmless as bunnies unless provoked", to the vast, vast "abortion clinic bomber squad" is a bigger menace than "Spontaneous Jihadis" or foreign Islamoids coming from AQ, 78 other Salafist groups, or just peaceful so far radical Islamoids fleeing hellhole Islamic nations torn apart by radical groups fighting one another and now coming to America and Europe to "bless us" with people and beliefs that turned their native lands into corrupt, violent, jobless, overpopulated hellholes.

Ecoterrorists the greatest threat by the FBI? Yeah, right, Freder.

After the whupping you had recently, you should think before posting and temper your love of the enemy.Your 12:14 PM post is actually promising in that aspect.

Al Qaeda’s long term strategic goal is to create Islamic states in the middle-east. To have any meaningful chance at accomplish this they need the United States to leave because we offer both military support and psychological support to the governments in the region.

The only possible way Al Qaeda can get America to leave is to convince the people at home to pull the troops out. Al Qaeda knows that there is a significant group vehemently opposed to our presence in Iraq. Thus they pander to that opposition and try to give moral support to the opposition. Al Qaeda has learned that the best way to demoralize America is either through the cost in deaths of soldiers or demoralization though the media by 1) killing civilians so that people here get the impression that innocent deaths are the result of our policy and 2) to ferment a civil war so that people here are demoralized into thinking that we are fighting for no reason or worse fighting for evil reasons. This demoralization campaign has been very successful and Al Qaeda has learned how to manipulate the media and to manipulate the anti-war crowd to help them achieve their goal.

In some ways you cannot directly blame the anti war types they represent the moral weakness of our society that lies just below the surface. The fault really lies with the Administration on failing to combat this campaign of demoralization. The Administration should be countering Al Qaeda’s campaign with more effective propaganda.

NEW YORK Former Los Angeles Times Baghdad Bureau Chief Borzou Daragahi says he doubts the "surge" in Iraq will work, and describes Iraq citizens as "hostile" and "humiliated" after four years of war.

Asked by Brian Lamb, in a forthcoming C-SPAN interview, about his personal views on the war, he replied:

"I think at this point, it just – it seems like it’s become a disaster. I mean, I don’t think anyone could dispute that. It’s just going very, very, very, very badly." He said he had mixed feelings about the invasion but "As time wore on, though, as the bodies mounted, it just seems more and more like a really bad mistake."

The interview will be broadcast Sunday night.

Daragahi, a Pulitzer finalist in 2005, an Iranian-born journalist who has also worked as a freelancer, plans to return to the Middle East soon as a Times' Beirut correspondent.

Highlights of the interview, from a C-SPAN transcript, are below:

--On why he believes the military surge won't work:

"Because there is not - even according to General Petraeus' own guidebook for fighting counterinsurgencies, they're not using soldiers, they're not using enough troops to accomplish their goals...But also, more fundamentally, I don't think that they can do this militarily. I don't think the fundamental problems in Iraq right now are military problems."

-- On why Iraqis feel humiliated:

"Iraqis are rather hostile and feel humiliated. And that's the key thing that maybe some of our policymakers don't understand. The presence of the U.S. soldiers is very humiliating to the Iraqis. Even those who, in their minds know that it's necessary to have the soldiers there, at least some kind of force there preventing an all-out civil war from getting even worse...I don't think they appreciate American culture."

-- On charges that the press is too negative on Iraq:

Well, I would just say, show me those goods.

For example, is infant mortality going down? Is the number of attacks on U.S. and coalition forces going down?Are the number of Iraqis who are fleeing the country declining? Is there an increase in employment? So, let’s see the facts.

Is there a decrease in the number of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed day to day? If there is, we’ve reported it. I mean, if there has been – and we put it prominently on page one.

I remember when the recent Baghdad security plan first went into effect, and there was a dramatic decline in the number of sectarian death squad executions, that was on the front page of the “Los Angeles Times.”

So, I think that the people who say that criticism should at least read our product first.

--His personal feelings about the war:

I think that in the beginning, I was conflicted as to whether I was – because I had the Kurdish perspective up there, you know. And you don’t fully adopt the perspective of the people that you’re covering. You can’t do that as a journalist. But you’re at least sympathetic to it.

And from the Kurdish point of view, they were very much in favor of the war. They very much viewed it as a liberation. And that was rather infectious.

And so, I can’t say that I was like completely against the invasion. I took a neutral, wait-and-see attitude....

Sort of what it’s turned into in the eyes of many people in the Middle East is a war of imperial conquest gone bad, done poorly. At least the Romans granted their captives citizenship and brought them into the fold and brought stability to the lands that they conquered.

And I think, in the Arab world – and this is a really disastrous thing, they basically view this is as, you know, the Americans came in and they destroyed an Arab country. And I don’t think they’ll ever forgive us for that.

It was a typo which I corrected next post. Guess you missed that in your haste.

And the German's main problem was they were incapable of "cranking out" anything. By the end of the war the Mark IV was obsolete but the Germans continued to manufacture it because the Panther continued to suffer both mechanical and production problems.

The Mark IV was obsolete compared to the T34, T34/76, and yes the Panther, however was evenly matched with the Sherman or the Cromwell. Considering they were under 24/7 strategic bombing since late 1943, I think cranking is an appropriate turn of phrase.

Compare the number of Panthers (6557 including the Jadgpanther) and Mark IVs (just over 13,000) produced with the T-34 (56,000) and the Sherman (47,000).

No argument, however, you are completely missing the point as usual. By your reasoning, 6 years into the war, Germany should have been mounting panzerfausts on the back of Volkswagens rather than creating Tigers and Panthers.

That Hitler wasted his last reserves of men and material on a suicidal attack on the American lines in December of 1944 is supposed to demonstrate what?

Again your standards state that if Al Quadea/insurgency was getting weaker, how come their bombs are more powerful/sophisticated? Gee, call it improvisation perhaps? If you're judging progress based upon the continued technological achievements of the enemy, then we should have called it quits in 1944.

Iraq isn't in any, way, shape or form analogous to World War I or World War II.

WE INVADED a SOVEREIGN NATION, Fen...WE were the aggressors...not the country that came to the aid of our allies.

We've alienated damn near the entire world, we're trapped like rats in a country where over 60% of the people think it's just fine to attack and kill Americans...and we have a President that is so incredibly delusional, he still thinks we're "winning."

It's time for you and people like Sloan to drag your sycophant heads out of Bush's ass and think of what we've done to that country...and for that matter, the entire Mideast.

WE INVADED a SOVEREIGN NATION, Fen...WE were the aggressors...not the country that came to the aid of our allies.

What are you talking about. Saddam violated almost every facet of the treaty he signed with us after Gulf War I - a treaty he signed speficially to save his own hide. To say that we were the agressors in this war is to forget the 11 years of history from 1991-2002. Although, forgetting history is something you leftists do best.

Under your theory or just war, France would not have had the moral right to take out Hitler after he reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of Versailles. France would have been the aggressor.

Fen & Sloan (sounds like a really bad comedy team):Sorry, girls...Iraq was and still is a "sovereign" nation. And yes, we did invade...under false pretenses, based on faulty and skewed intelligence, trumpeted by Bush and his cadre of neocon war mongers. (And boy, does it make me cringe using the words intelligence and Bush in the same sentence.)

You can blow smoke up your own asses as long as you want, but anybody who still thinks we're "winning" or that we "did the right thing" by getting ourselves mired in this situation is almost as delusional as G.W. Bush.

Oh, and further illustrate just how out of touch your opinions are, you might want to keep the following in mind:1. More than 65% of America thinks it was a mistake to invade.2. More than 65% of America wants us out of Iraq.3. Only 28-30% of America supports George W. Bush.http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

As I said before: Drag those pointy little sycophant heads out of Georgie's ass and try to think for yourselves...it may not be too late for either of you.

The arguments you put forth are as old as the hills.(And Sloan, for the life of me...please exaplain what McCain or Giuliani have to do with Bush's 28% approval rating...and why would you pay any attention to polls that are out 18 months away from an election??)

"1. More than 65% of America thinks it was a mistake to invade.2. More than 65% of America wants us out of Iraq.3. Only 28-30% of America supports George W. Bush.

Drag those pointy little sycophant heads out of Georgie's ass and try to think for yourselves."

Sir (an assumption) : This might be a good time for you to step back and take a long hard look at yourself. From my vantage point, it isnt folks like Fen or Sloan who have the problem of not thinking for themselves. If you are such a free thinker, why do you put so much stock in what a majority of Americans believe? Just trying to help you out here :-).

zzron,Yeah, why would an American like myself...possibly care about what Americans think?

Duh...

And, as I said before...you and the rest of the right wing sycophants here can continue to blow smoke up your asses as long as you want, but if you actually think Bush lugs around a 28% approval rating because he's doing a good job or has ever done a good job, you need an education in politics, life and history.

P.S. Sloan...the polling is done by a wide variety of organizations, ranging from Zogby, Rassmussen, CBS, Fox, etc...and if you have to lean on the inane argument that they're all "liberal," you're even dumber than I thought.

Lefty logic - And, as I said before...you and the rest of the right wing sycophants here can continue to blow smoke up your asses as long as you want, but if you actually think Bush lugs around a 28% approval rating...

And Lefty logic assumes that because a leaders personal poll numbers are bad, that negativity - ergo - automatically extends to anything that leader is in favor of.Prescription drugs. Amnesty for illegals. Tax cuts. Iraq. Containing N Korea with allies. More education funding.

Oh? NO? You mean you can only correlate it to Iraq and how the evil Bush-Hitler invaded a sovereign country that was no threat to us?

Unlike Bosnia? Unlike the invasion Lefties want us to do in Sudan when they are no threat to us, have no WMDs, and the all-wise UN says NO????

That sort of Lefty logic?

That Britain opposed WWII in 1945 because Churchill was personally unpopular and was a dead duck next election?

That sort of Lefty logic?

No, the dislike of Bush is not confined to the Left. The Left errs though in thinking that means that the public, dislikeing Bush, is suddenly in their camp on loving terrorist rights, the need to declare defeat, that we must never ever take action in another foreign country for any reason without UN approval.(Unless it can be demonstrated that invasion is absolutely not in America's perceived vital interest, but is being done despite UN opposition for "humanitarian reasons")

Yeah, right.

Whether you admit it or not, you Lefties with your hatred of American military doing any mission have effectively doomed Darfur and any subsequent genocide from US intervention.

Absolutely, without exception. Unless, of course, the sovereign nation violates the Kyoto Treaty, engages in unfair labor and/or trade practices, doesn't provide universal and free health care, and permits the means of production to be privately owned. I've long thought the international community should invade the U.S. and, as part of reconstruction, compel us to conform to international standards.

2) Does sovereignty trumps legal concepts like international law and resolutions from the United Nations?

No, absolutely not. Please see above.

3) should the international community allow Iran to develop WMDs?

Of course. Not that they are, or that they would use them if the did develop them, but they have a right to defend themselves, especially from that mad idiot who's gone missing from that village in Texas who thinks he's King George. Besides which, we all know mutual assured destruction won the Cold War. The only way to defeat the mad Mullahs is to give them nuclear weapons and let the magic of MAD go to work. We'll win, for sure.

4) if not, how do we stop them?

Why do we want to stop them? Please see above. We need to understand them, and stop doing the things that cause them and everyone else in the world from hating us. Like, getting rid of King George, first.

And my favorite, the one you guys have been dodging all day [damn I wish Cyrus was here to take a stab at this]

What evidence do we have that Iran has a WMD program, and how is that evidence better than what we had on Iraq?

Exactly. We have no evidence that Iran has a WMD program, and if we did, it certainly wouldn't be any better that what we had on Iraq. If we just leave Iraq now, stop buying oil and forget about those damned Jews in Occupied Palestine, all of our troubles would go away.

cedar-head:"Lefty logic assumes that because a leaders personal poll numbers are bad, that negativity - ergo - automatically extends to anything that leader is in favor of."

No, but in this case, the numbers are low because the man has screwed up literally everything he's touched and the American public knows it.

If you actually think this man gives a flying f**k about lowering prescription drug prices (no negotiations with pharma companies via the government...why?) or taxes for the middle-class (the top 1% reap 99% of the tax cut benefits) or anything that even relates to a national heal care program (try getting insurance if you have anything wrong with you) you're as dumb as Sloan and Fen.

As for "vital interests" and Iraq...as I said before...yank your pointy little head out of Bush's ass. That argument flies in the face of all logic. (And what does Iraq have to do with Bosnia?? Are you really comparing the two?)

*Oh, and disagreeing with bonehead Bush doesn't mean the "lefties" as you call us, don't support military power and our soldiers...that's the same Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity crap we can hear on the radio every day. Get some new material...only the right wing suckasses like yourself are buying into that anymore.)

Wow Tim! Apparently I figure so prominently in your daily thoughts that you can't keep yourself from mentioning my name in your posts, even when I'm not commenting. Is your school notebook filled with doodles like "Cyrus -N- Tim 4ever" and "Tim Pinkerton" decorating the margins?

Honestly, Tim, I'm flattered, but it would never work out. I simply can't have a pet that can't be house-trained.

Lucky said..."Yeah, why would an American like myself...possibly care about what Americans think?"

Its very nice that you care about what your (and my) fellow Americans believe. I do too. Sorry if I offended you, but it just seemd plain old silly to me how you could accuse certain folks of not thinking for themselves and then site opinion polls to reinforce your point. Go figure.

Which is different from blathering on about how great G.W. is how? Remember, you're supposed to be the intelligent one here.

Why are you suddenly backing away? Rather gutless, even for a wingnut

What am I backing away from? I'm merely treating you with the ridicule and scorn you deserve. Besides, Cyrus is in the room now and is much more interesting - he actually uses reason to make his point.

Oh, and, as for "reason," please illustrate where you yourself have used any form of reason to defend G.W.'s decision making or the fiasco we have on our hands in Iraq?

Continuing to say liberals are somehow un-American or traitorous or that they don't support the troops because they want us out...or in you and Sloan's case, that we're going to somehow "win" in Iraq is nothing more than right wing talking points we hear every day from Rush, Sean, etc.

Tell us how you think we're going to "win"...and how long we have to be there before it happens.

Granted, the aftermath has not gone nearly as well as hoped, and the future is, at best, uncertain, but fiasco?

Saddam deposed, tried, executed.

Democratic elections held, resulting in a constitution and a government, both of which the enemy has not changed.

The battlefield itself - no defeats. Not one. No unit has lost its colors, surrendered to the enemy, or even lost an engagement to the enemy. The enemy cannot take anything from us. All he can do is stage hit and run attacks, hide bombs, and kill innocents. He's especially good at killing innocents.

And the enemy is good at one more thing - despite his failure to defeat any U.S. (or coalition) force on the battlefield, he has clearly defeated Congressional Democrats and their voters - all without firing a shot.

That's the real fiasco. Americans 6,200 miles from a hot war are willing to abandon American troops engaging the enemy to defeat. Americans 6,200 miles from a hot war are willing to give the enemy the one thing they haven't earned - victory on the battlefield - because they are tired, dispirited, bored or, most likely, they hate the president more than they do the enemy. If honor was a public virtue instead of preening, most would be ashamed of themselve.

Instead, we have a nation wanting to prove itself utterly unworthy of its warriors. Do not delude yourself into thinking this does not matter, or that there will be no price for this craven foolishness. There will be a price, and it will be heavy - and it will be sooner than you think.

Ask yourself, if you can, how much harder would the enemy's task be if Congressional Democrats and their voters devoted a mere fraction of their energy to defeating Bush to defeating the enemy?

Undermining America's will to win is the enemy's mission, and Democrat confirmation the enemy is succeeding is the enemy's lifeblood in Iraq.

Or have you paid no attention to Petraeus at all? Cognitive dissonance to your talking points from the DNC and Daily Kos? Democrats have demanded Bush listen to the Generals. Why won't you?

It would be a real burden on the soul to hope that everyday you get up there will be another mass suicide bombing in Iraq, yet that is the position the Democrats have put themselves into and it's taking its toll.

Democrats are miscalculating the humiliation the American people will feel in the future if we withdraw. Bush won't be around to despise any more. The people will blame the Democrats for the humiliation, because no one can deny that Bush wanted to fight.

Moreover once the emotion and Bush hatred over the war subsides people will examine the Iraq war based on the facts and the relative comparisons. They will ask why we withdrew after so few casualties compared to other wars. They will ask why we withdrew even though we never lost a battle. They will ask why we left Iraq when we promised the Iraqis that we would help them.

"It would be a real burden on the soul to hope that everyday you get up there will be another mass suicide bombing in Iraq, yet that is the position the Democrats have put themselves into and it's taking its toll."

Agreed. However, the immediate burden can only result from a consciousness of soul. There is scant evidence of that. Or, rather, their hatred of Bush burns so hot, so deep, and their loathing of the U.S. is so strong that they must have those feelings constantly validated. It's an addiction and their narcotic is the regular, mass slaughter of innocents by the enemy. The enemy's killing of innocents gives them a high that so far is only superseded by the enemy killing American soldiers; each American death is validation of their worldview; each American death they believe adds to the political shame of the president they hate so much more than the do the enemy.

The death of innocents and American soldiers is like meth - it feeds their addiction and gives them a high unlike any they've felt before - all the while hollowing them out unto empty shells, formerly human.

But the high they really yearn for, are desperate for, is the one resulting from defeat. It would validate everything for them - and for it they would do anything (they'd disclaim this, of course - but they and their representatives in Congress have done nothing to win in Iraq).

God save any of us from people who'd support us like they support the troops. No one needs friends like that.

I don't fund those who work against my county, let alone the fact Ricks is hardly objective.

I didn't see Michael Moore's movie either.

More importantly, why don't Democrats listen to Petraeus? After all, they voted to confirm him.

Why won't you listen to Petraeus? Why are those who want us to lose in Iraq your authority instead of those trying to win?

Why is it so important for you that we lose in Iraq?

What have you done to encourage the Congressional Democrats to work for victory in Iraq?

Why do you think anyone, beside the enemy, will be better for us losing in Iraq?

How do you think losing in Iraq makes us stronger, and the enemy weaker?

How does losing in Iraq make it easier for us to gain allies?

Why would allying oneself with the U.S. after it quits on the democratically elected government of Iraq and the Iraqi people be smarter and more likely than if the U.S. sees the mission through?

Why should any moderate Muslim think the U.S. is serious about defeating militant Islamic fascism once it quits on the democratic and secular government of Iraq?

How does losing in Iraq empower moderate Muslims?

Fuck Ricks. I don't need to read him or his damned book. I know what's happening over there - and we're not losing.

We're losing here. Thanks for doing your part to make the larger war longer, bloodier, and more uncertain. Americans in the future will undoubtedly be gratified by your willingness to have them die fighting a war you wouldn't help finish earlier.

Thomas E. Ricks is a Washington Post Pentagon and military correspondent and Pulitzer Prize-winner. Ricks lectures widely to the military and is a member of Harvard University's Senior Advisory Council on the Project on U.S. Civil-Military Relations. Ricks is the author of the bestselling books Making the Corps, A Soldier's Duty, and Fiasco: The American Military Adventure In Iraq.

Prior to joining the Washington Post in 2000, Ricks was a reporter with the Wall Street Journal for seventeen years. He is graduate of Yale University.

Lucky: Fen, Why have you not responded to your "black" comment??It's not easy being a racist, is it? ...the "black" comment. explain.

"Pink. Its the new black" - You've never heard the statement in fashion circles? And you're so dense as to equate it with racism?

And after thumping your chest about how we're all so stupid, you can't follow a simple clue to figure out who/what I work for? I gave it away, anyone who cares has already figured it out. What happened to that "superior" intellect you've been boasting of?

Intelligence is demonstrable Lucky. I've lost interest in responding to your "stupid" flames - I always feel guilty afterwards, like I've been picking on a cripple.

So troll away, I'm ignoring you from here on out, and advise others to do the same.

Cyrus: Fen,I'd love to stay and play with you and Tim but I'm heading out the door for a weekend trip. Have a good weekend and I'll catch up with you on Monday.

Fair enough. I'll save it for another thread, as this one has been spiked and will be buried. Here it is again:

What evidence do we have that Iran has a WMD program, and how is that evidence better than what we had on Iraq?

Its not meant to be a "gotcha" question, Cyrus. The next administration will have to deal with Iran's WMD program, and the "evidence" of it doesn't appear to be any stronger than what we had re Iraq. I'm curious as to how Dems will reconcile that.

Ted Kennedy - Dem: "The gravest threat we face is a nuclear 9-11"

Jay Rockefeller - Dem Oct 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late."

The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil. Read more…

There's another issue involving Iraqi oil that has gone virtually unnoticed. Between $5 and $15 million dollars in Iraqi oil goes missing every day. It's becoming clear why Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force meetings were made classified and why attempts to gain access to records from those meetings met with such strong resistance and are still being kept from the public to this day.

Listen, I don't fault you for resorting to name calling. Were my argument as weak and moral sense as corrupt as yours, I'd probably do the same.

As for chickenshit, indeed, I'm defending a war that is so popular across the land these days; I'm one who counsels against surrender; I'm one who you and your jihadi allies have yet to convince to surrender.

You should know it's the chickenshit who takes the path of least resistance - quitting, surrendering, giving up. That's your side of the argument, not mine.

The war can and should be won, despite your opposition and faithlessness.